As the 2026 cycle barrels forward, President Trump’s renewed push to nationalize elections has reopened long‑running fights over federal authority and the integrity of the voting system. The release of millions of pages of Epstein documents has further scrambled partisan loyalties, exposing rifts inside the MAGA coalition.
Meanwhile, Democrats face their own tensions: over immigration enforcement, over how aggressively to confront the administration, and over how to defend state‑level autonomy as federal agencies escalate their actions.
Combined with ongoing battles over redistricting, Gateway funding and New Jersey’s position as a leading state challenging federal actions, the result is a political landscape defined by volatility and significant institutional stakes.
Julie Roginsky, a Democrat, and Mike DuHaime, a Republican, are consultants who have worked on opposite teams for their entire careers yet have remained friends. Star-Ledger editor Enrique Lavín is moderator.
Nationalizing voting
Q: President Trump is saying Republicans should “nationalize” voting and even “take over” elections in some states. How seriously should we take this effort to delegitimize state-run elections ahead of this year’s midterms?
Julie: We should take everything Trump says seriously, even though this is, of course, extra-constitutional. I just want to remind my Republican friends that one day the shoe will be on the other foot and Democrats will be in charge of the federal government. Is this really the door they want to open?
Mike: Nationalizing elections is a terrible idea. One of the reasons we have safe and secure elections is that we do not have one centralized election. We have 10,000 locally administered elections at the same time. This decentralized approach is a massive security feature so there isn’t one central repository that can be tampered with or corrupted.
Furthermore, as a conservative, this is blatantly against what the founders envisioned when they wrote the constitution and put the power to administer elections in the hands of state legislatures. Another point as a conservative, is that we trust government more when it’s closer to home. We do not want the federal government in charge of education, healthcare, police, or local transportation, so why would we want bureaucrats in Washington running our local mayor and school board elections?
Trump resurfacing 2020 lies
Q: With Trump again pushing false claims about 2020 again — and the Fulton County raid happening days after he warned people would be “prosecuted” — how worried should we be about election-result tampering by the federal government?
Julie: Again, we should be very worried. They will tamper with those Fulton County ballots to prove whatever crazy conspiracy theory is in Trump’s head to gin up their own base. The fact that we are even talking about this as a very real possibility is bonkers.
Mike: It’s been six years. The 2020 election wasn’t stolen when Trump lost. And neither were the 2016 and 2024 elections when Trump won. Elections in this country are the safest and most secure in the world.
There’s so much less opportunity for fraud than there was 25 years ago. Unfortunately, both parties now try to sew doubt in elections for their own political game. Many House Democrats failed to certify the election in 2004 and 2016. Many House Republicans failed to certify the election in 2020, after a riot, encouraged by the president and some U.S. senators who knew what they were doing was wrong. Stacey Abrams never conceded her loss as a Democrat in Georgia in 2018. It is time for everyone to stop. Safe and secure elections are the foundation of our democratic republic, and confidence in our elections undergird all that make our country great.
Redistricting battle
Q: Texas locking in a Trump‑backed map that boosts Republicans and California secured a Newsom‑backed map that boosts Democrats, each grabbing roughly five seats. Both were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. What are you watching for here?
Julie: I am watching for the brown wave that is going to likely propel Democrats to historic wins this November, assuming we have free and fair elections. Texas Republicans gerrymandered some of these seats under the assumption that Latino voters would be with them in perpetuity. That was a dumb calculus.
Mike: Virginia has passed a map that is 11-1 for Democrats. That’s absurd in a purple state. It seems only Indiana Republicans have resisted the pressure from the president.
Julie: As the kids say, FAFO. Trump and the Republicans opened the door to mid-decade redistricting and now there are complaints when Democrats won’t unilaterally disarm? I think not.
Epstein scandal
Q: In the wake of last week’s release of massive Epstein files, I’ve read and heard several pundits say with the sheer volume — 3 million–plus pages — the Trump administration has “flooded the zone,” seemingly freezing public reaction. Is it working? Or will people who usually don’t pay attention to politics begin to tune in?
Julie: The good news is that people know how to read, even if it takes longer. With each new revelation, one thing becomes apparent: Jeffrey Epstein was protected by at least four administrations, even as he ran a massive pedophile sex trafficking ring. The only remaining question is, why?
Mike: Eventually, people will find what’s in there. The New York Giants are finding that out the hard way.
Trump’s connection
Q: According to an initial New York Times analysis, Trump’s name appears about 38,000 times in roughly 5,000 Epstein files — far more than almost anyone else — and even Melania shows up in the correspondence. None of it directly proves wrongdoing, the report concluded, but it does document a much deeper, longer relationship with Epstein than the president now admits. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche reiterated the point multiple times, saying there is no evidence in the files that warrants prosecuting Trump. Will he survive this scandal, as well?
Julie: Don’t forget that Todd Blanche and the Trump Justice Department only released 50% of the files in their possession. The smoking-gun records have obviously been held back to protect the president, his family and his friends.
Mike: There’s no proof of wrongdoing, but this is not a good look for the president. Of course, Jeffrey Epstein dropping Trump’s name more than anyone else’s is also not proof of anything that Epstein is a serial namedropper, among far worse attributes. For Republicans, they cannot be on the side of protecting whatever is hidden. They ran on transparency and removing the deep state. They can’t become the protectors of the rich and powerful deep state now.
Divided response
Q: Vice President JD Vance is signaling openness to testimony from figures like former Prince Andrew. Why do you think Trump and Vance are openly splitting on next steps?
Julie: Vance knows Prince Andrew will never be compelled to testify. He also knows the MAGA base is furious at AG Pam Bondi and Blanche for holding back so many documents. He figures this is not his mess, so why own it? But, to be clear, he will never demand that the Justice Department comply with federal law and releases all the documents.
Mike: Vance is very smart. He rose to power being against the deep state. He will not be seen as protecting it now. Julie rightly points out this is not his mess, so he should not own it.
Q: MAGA figureheads have been fractured in their responses. Does this further expose deeper tensions in the coalition?
Julie: The MAGA coalition is fracturing, it is dispirited, and it is, as usual, paranoid. This does not bode well for Republican turnout this November.
Mike: I can’t believe MAGA isn’t unified in favor of full transparency.
Don’t lock her up?
Q: Why would Trump who built his 2016 campaign around “Lock her up!” now express sympathy for Bill and Hillary Clinton as they prepare to testify before Congress about Epstein under threat of contempt? “I think it’s a shame to be honest. I always liked [Bill Clinton],” Trump told reporters.
Julie: Someone must have told Trump that Bill Clinton has had access to intelligence briefings for the past several decades. In other words, he knows what’s in the Epstein files, even if we don’t.
Mike: Trump is not beholden to what he said yesterday, so it doesn’t matter what he said 10 years ago as circumstances change.
Dems on funding ICE
Q: The House kept DHS funded only until Feb. 13 to give Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the White House time to negotiate ICE and CBP reforms. Progressives want real enforcement changes; Schumer wants to avoid a shutdown. How significant is this clash inside the party?
Julie: It is significant. I think Schumer and Democratic leadership more broadly are really missing what is happening on the ground across the country. Democrats don’t want to fund a Gestapo-style paramilitary force that snatches innocent people off the streets, executes American civilians in cold blood and occupies major American cities. If that means shutting down the government to end this nightmare, that is what Schumer should do.
Mike: Agree. Democrats have few levers to pull as the minority party throughout the federal government. They should not cave again.
Sherrill strikes back
Q: With a viral ICE agent saying “We don’t need a warrant, bro” and Gov. Mikie Sherrill firing back, “We still follow the Constitution here in New Jersey, bro,” some fear she’s gearing up for a full‑blown showdown with the Trump administration, provoking a Minneapolis-style response. What are you hearing?
Julie: I don’t fear it. I welcome it. Gov. Sherrill is standing up for the rule of law, for the Constitution and for democracy. I applaud her for it.
Mike: I applaud the governor for doing what she thinks is right to stand up to overreach, but let’s not provoke for the sake of politics. People have died in Minneapolis. This is no longer just political theater. Smart politicians like good law enforcement officers will seek to de-escalate here.
The Gateway fight
Q: Sherrill and other New Jersey leaders are throwing every legal and political tool they have at the Trump administration to stop the Gateway project from collapsing. What outcome do expect here?
Julie: Who knows? If Trump wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, he will gut funding. If he decides to restore it tomorrow, he will. Maybe the state can eminent domain the Bedminster golf course to build some affordable housing, as Assemblywoman Katie Brennan once suggested. Kowtowing to this bully gets you nowhere. You need to confront him head-on.
Mike: Eventually, the funding will come, even if it is not until Democrats retake some power. The project is too important to the national economy to remain a political football for another decade.
Editor’s note: Can Americans still have a sensible and friendly political discussion across the partisan divide? The answer is yes, and we prove it every week with this “Friendly Fire” conversation.
